Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish · ¶39
The phrase “relating to” sweeps broadly. It means “ `to stand in some relation; to have bearing or concern; to pertain; refer; to bring into association with or connection with.' ” Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U. S. 374, 383 (1992) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 1158 (5th ed. 1979)). One thing can relate to another even if the connection is “indirect.” Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 U. S. 133, 139 (1990). One thing can relate to another even if it was “not specifically designed to affect” it. Ibid. And, one thing can relate to another even without a “strict causal relationship.” Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 592 U. S. 351, 362 (2021); see also Altria Group, Inc. v. Good, 555 U. S. 70, 85–86 (2008). Accordingly, a removing defendant need not show that his federal duties specifically required or strictly caused the challenged conduct. See…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.